Dear Mr Quinn,

When is Cardinal Brady going to be arrested?

Monsignor William Lynn, a priest in America, was sentenced just recently to three to six years in prison by a judge who said he “enabled monsters in clerical garb … to destroy the souls of children.” – we should remind the nation that our own Cardinal Brady is still walking around as free as he likes for having done EXACTLY the same disgusting crime as Lynn, in our own nation, over many, many years!

Lynn did what Brady did – didn’t report the abuses and kept silent. Lynn got sent to jail!
Brady still hasn’t!

WHY!!!

Lynn, who handled priest assignments and child sexual assault complaints from 1992 to 2004, was convicted of felony child endangerment for his oversight of now-defrocked priest Edward Avery – exactly the same situation as Cardinal Brady.

What has Cardinal Brady got? NOTHING! He’s scott free without a fear of being prosecuted! The government of Fine Gael and Labour while further seeing that the Irish public are further screwed by more taxes, charges and cuts to services, are still saying nothing, doing nothing to see this disgusting person be held to account for his own crimes!

Remember this when the next election time rolls around!

The deal done on the last day of Govt in 2002 was disgraceful and let the churches away very lightly on their responsibility , as the article says they should have a moral obligation to pay their fair share but failing that the govt should reopen the negotiations and force them to pay if they don’t step up.

http://politico.ie/society/1594-the-135-billion-sting-how-the-religious-orders-outmanoeuvred-the-state.html

Why should the members of a church pay out to compensate for abuse perpetrated and covered up by church leadership… it’s a nice gesture they would want to but they are victims too although not in nearly the same capacity.

The Vatican should be dragged in front of the international criminal court and be made to pay for covering it up and enabling it to continue, that’s the greatest crime here

The problem with the “all or nothing” comments here, ie, “Quinn cannot criticise the Church because he’s been a bad boy himself”, is that saying that unless everything is addressed immediately, the whole process is pointless. Real improvements occur slowly, in small steps. If you want everything to be fixed simultaneously, you’re ensuring that you will be disappointed.

I would safely say of the 1.47 billion about 100 million went to the actual victims the rest went to the very poor people in the legal system and does people working professionally in the abuse and victim support groups set up to “Help ” the victims in there hour of need …

i watched primetime last week. Just caught the end of the report where a Magladine Laundry in Galway made ?54-64k back in the 60′s which in todays money is about ?1.5 million The girls that worked in these slave camps received no wages or any kind
So i believe the church should pick up the bill…. No questions asked…

While the church should pick up this tab I find it ironic that the man who wrote the article is a government minister who is paying out €1 billion to unsecured bond holders today.

I bet churches won’t even be liable for the Property Tax

Some of the findings of fact from the Child Abuse Commission published 40 months ago.

Physical and emotional abuse and neglect were features of the institutions. Sexual abuse occurred in many of them. Schools were run in a severe, regimented manner that imposed unreasonable and oppressive discipline on children …

The deferential and submissive attitude of the Department of Education towards the
Congregations compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty of inspection and monitoring of the schools.

Many witnesses who complained of abuse nevertheless expressed some positive memories: small gestures of kindness were vividly recalled. A word of consideration or encouragement, or an act of sympathy or understanding had a profound effect. Adults in their sixties and seventies recalled seemingly insignificant events that had remained with them all their lives. Often the act of kindness recalled in such a positive light arose from the simple fact that the staff member had not given a beating when one was expected.

The Rules and Regulations governing the use of corporal punishment were disregarded with the knowledge of the Department of Education.

The Reformatory and Industrial Schools depended on rigid control by means of severe corporal punishment and the fear of such punishment.

The harshness of the regime was inculcated into the culture of the schools by successive generations of Brothers, priests and nuns. It was systemic and not the result of individual breaches by persons who operated outside lawful and acceptable boundaries.

A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys. Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from.

Seeing or hearing other children being beaten was a frightening experience that stayed with many complainants all their lives.

Children who ran away were subjected to extremely severe punishment.

Absconders were severely beaten, at times publicly. Some had their heads shaved and were humiliated. Details were not reported to the Department, which did not insist on receiving information about the causes of absconding. Neither the Department nor the school management investigated the reasons why children absconded even when schools had a particularly high rate of absconding.

Complaints by parents and others made to the Department were not properly investigated.

Punishments outside the permitted guidelines were ignored and even condoned by the Department of Education.

The boys’ schools investigated revealed a pervasive use of severe corporal punishment.

There was little variation in the use of physical beating from region to region, from decade to decade, or from Congregation to Congregation.

This would indicate a cultural understanding within the system that beating boys was acceptable and appropriate. Individual Brothers, priests or lay staff who were extreme in their punishments were tolerated by management and their behaviour was rarely challenged.

Corporal punishment in girls’ schools was pervasive, severe, arbitrary and unpredictable and this led to a climate of fear amongst the children.

The regulations imposed greater restrictions on the use of corporal punishment for girls. Schools varied as to the level of corporal punishment that was tolerated on a day-to-day basis. In some schools a high level of ritualised beating was routine whilst in other schools lower levels of corporal punishment were used.

Corporal punishment was often administered in a way calculated to increase anguish and humiliation for girls.

One way of doing this was for children to be left waiting for long periods to be beaten. Another was when it was accompanied by denigrating or humiliating language. Some beatings were more distressing when administered in front of other children and staff.

Sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions. The situation in girls’ institutions was different. Although girls were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees or visitors or in outside placements, sexual abuse was not systemic in girls’ schools.

It is impossible to determine the full extent of sexual abuse committed in boys’ schools. The schools investigated revealed a substantial level of sexual abuse of boys in care…

Cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimising the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator. When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Gardai. When a member of a Congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to the Gardaí.

The damage to the children affected and the danger to others were disregarded. The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness of the offence, yet there was a reluctance to confront religious who offended in this way.

The recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to religious authorities.

The documents revealed that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. Contrary to the Congregations’ claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear from the documented cases that they were aware of the propensity for abusers to re-abuse.

When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again.

Sexual abuse was known to religious authorities to be a persistent problem in male religious organisations throughout the relevant period.

Nevertheless, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in secrecy by the authorities and there was no attempt to address the underlying systemic nature of the problem.

In the exceptional circumstances where opportunities for disclosing abuse arose, the number of sexual abusers identified increased significantly.

For a brief period in the 1940s, boys felt able to speak about sexual abuse in confidence at a sodality that met in one school. Brothers were identified by the boys as sexual abusers and were removed as a result. The sodality was discontinued. In another school, one Brother embarked on a campaign to uncover sexual activity in the school and identified a number of religious who were sexual abusers. This indicated that the level of sexual abuse in boys’ institutions was much higher than was revealed by the records or could be discovered by this investigation. Authoritarian management systems prevented disclosures by staff and served to perpetuate abuse.

The Congregational authorities did not listen to or believe people who complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past, notwithstanding the extensive evidence that emerged from Garda investigations, criminal convictions and witness accounts.

Some Congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the evidence heard by the Investigation Committee in respect of sexual abuse in institutions, even in cases where men had been convicted in court and admitted to such behaviour at the hearings.

n general, male religious Congregations were not prepared to accept their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their members perpetrated.

Congregational loyalty enjoyed priority over other considerations including safety and protection of children.

Sexual abuse of girls was generally taken seriously by the Sisters in charge and lay staff were dismissed when their activities were discovered. However, nuns’ attitudes and mores made it difficult for them to deal with such cases candidly and openly and victims of sexual assault felt shame and fear of reporting sexual abuse.

Girls who were abused reported that it happened most often when they were sent to host families for weekend, work or holiday placements. They did not feel able to report abusive behaviour to the Sisters in charge of the schools for fear of disbelief and punishment if they did.

Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of the Department of Education by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue.

The Department of Education dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases.

All such complaints should have been directed to the Gardai for investigation.

The Department, however, gave the impression that it had a function in relation to investigating allegations of abuse but actually failed to do so and delayed the involvement of the proper authority. The Department neglected to advise parents and complainants appropriately of the limitations of their role in respect of these complaints.

Children were frequently hungry and food was inadequate, inedible and badly prepared in many schools.

Witnesses spoke of scavenging for food from waste bins and animal feed.

The Inspector found that malnourishment was a serious problem in schools run by nuns in the 1940s and, although improvements were made, the food provided in many of these schools continued to be meagre and basic.

Witnesses recalled being cold because of inadequate clothing, particularly when engaged in outdoor activities.

Clothing was a particular problem in boys’ schools where children often worked for long hours outdoors on farms. In addition, boys were often left in their soiled and wet work clothes throughout the day and wore them for long periods.

Accommodation was cold, spartan and bleak. Sanitary provision was primitive in most boys’ schools and general hygiene facilities were poor.

Children slept in large unheated dormitories with inadequate bedding, which was a particular problem for children with enuresis.

Where Industrial School children were educated in internal national schools, the standard was consistently poorer than that in outside schools.

Industrial Schools were intended to provide basic industrial training to young people to enable them to take up positions of employment as young adults. In reality, the industrial training afforded by all schools was of a nature that served the needs of the institution rather than the needs of the child.

A disturbing element of the evidence before the Commission was the level of emotional abuse that disadvantaged, neglected and abandoned children were subjected to generally by religious and lay staff in institutions.

Witnesses spoke of being belittled and ridiculed on a daily basis. Humiliating practices such as underwear inspections and displaying soiled or wet sheets were conducted throughout the Industrial School system. Private matters such as bodily functions and personal hygiene were used as opportunities for degradation and humiliation. Personal and family denigration was widespread, particularly in girls’ schools. There was constant criticism and verbal abuse and children were told they were worthless. The pervasiveness of emotional abuse of children in care throughout the relevant period points to damaging cultural attitudes of many who taught in and operated these schools.

Witnessing abuse of co-residents, including seeing other children being beaten or hearing their cries, witnessing the humiliation of siblings and others and being forced to participate in beatings, had a powerful and distressing impact.

Many witnesses spoke of being constantly fearful or terrified, which impeded their emotional development and impacted on every aspect of their life in the institution. The psychological damage caused by these experiences continued into adulthood for many witnesses.

Separating siblings and restrictions on family contact were profoundly damaging for family relationships. Some children lost their sense of identity and kinship, which was never recovered.

Sending children to isolated locations increased the sense of loss and made it almost impossible for family contact to be maintained. Management did not recognise the rights of children to have contact with family members and failed to acknowledge the value of family relationships.

Witnesses reported severe physical abuse in primary schools, foster care, Children’s Homes and other residential settings where those responsible neglected their duty of care to children.

The predatory nature of sexual abuse including the selection and grooming of socially disadvantaged and vulnerable children was a feature of the witness reports in relation to special needs services, Children’s homes, hospitals and primary and second-level schools. Children with impairments of sight, hearing and learning were particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse.

Witnesses reported neglect of their education, health and aftercare in all residential settings and foster care. No priority was given to the special care needs of children who were placed away from their families.

Children in isolated foster care placements were abused in the absence of supervision by external authorities. They were placed with foster parents who had no training, support or supervision. The suitability of those selected as foster parents was repeatedly questioned by witnesses who were physically and sexually abused.

Many witnesses described losing their sense of family and identity when placed in out-of-home care, they reported that separation from siblings and deprivation of family contact was abusive and contributed to difficulties reintegrating with their family of origin when they left care.

When witnesses left care the failure to provide them with personal and family records contributed to disadvantage in later life. Many witnesses spent years searching for information to establish their identity.

The failure of authorities to inspect and supervise the care provided to children in hospitals and special needs services was noted as contributing to abuse which occurred in those facilities. The absence of structures for making complaints or investigating abuse allowed abuse to continue.

When opportunities were provided for children to disclose abuse they did so.

Witnesses reported that the power of the abuser, the culture of secrecy, isolation and the fear of physical punishment inhibited them in disclosing abuse.

15,000 victims of sexual and physical violence. 800 individual abusers identified. 18 Religious Orders named. ZERO Prosecutions.

Quinn, has a point. While all the abuses were going on, people were still going to mass and giving money to the church when there was knowledge about what was going on.

There’s a big difference between the Church and the congregations – I agree that the Church should be made to pay, but for the Minister to state that the congregrations have a moral obligation to meet the costs of the Church for the abuse victims is almost like telling them to seek donations at mass, which isnt right either

These congregations are completely devoid of anything resembling Christian decency, morality or humility. They should read the bible and see that Jesus was as bout as different to them as could be. Greedy, money obsessed leeches.

Pay for the wrongs that your orders have done to so many and beg forgiveness.

I am sure its not very politically correct I will not be popular in Longford for being critical—but I just seen on RTE News that the church are undertaking the largest cathedral restoration project in Europe at a cost of 30 million euro which will be completed in 13 months , the cathedral was damaged by fire in 2009 and while i know that it is insurance cover , I still think its interesting how how the church can prioritize , act so quickly , spend vasts sums so quickly on rebuilding a cathedral ( are we really short religious building in ireland) and yet take years evading their responsibilities to sexual abuse victims.

The Catholic church in Ireland is just one branch of an International organisation, a very wealthy organisation. In Germany people have to declare their religon and pay a tax of 8%-9%, as numbers have left the Church due to sex abuse revelations they became alarmed at the loss of their earnings. Not the abuse. The church there have decreed;
“Unless they pay the religious tax, Catholics will no longer be allowed receive sacraments, except before death, or work in the church and its schools or hospitals.”
Money is all these people care about. Bear in mind they know there will be two future battles coming for the Catholic Church in ireland to fight Gay Marraige and Abortion. You can be sure that, despite what they say, they’ll find the money to fund campaigns to fight both those battles. Child sex abuse, it can be explained away, but Gay’s marrying and Abortion, no, not in Catholic Ireland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19699581

This minister makes me laugh why should I pay towards a person being abused when I didn’t know nor have a hand in it!!! While he is at it ask him to give money to the thousands of families who have been wrecked
By abuse by their Brother sister mother or father no I don’t see that happening and I won’t be guilt ridden into donating money into something that wasn’t my fault!!!! I don’t mean to sound so off hand about the people who were abused but I don’t think the minister will be putting his hand into his pocket anytime soon!!!! The church is to blame also the state they gave the church the power!!!!

Stick to the topic.

What populous comment – what about the governments moral obligation to its people.

If it was you or I that owed a tenner – the government would be all over us, chasing us into court – but no, the religious orgs get a pass!

The usually double standards from our government.

Mr Quinn. Should have a whip around amongst his high earning colleagues…..or put a donation box in the dail bar ! !!!

Bahahahaha Quinn appealing to the church’s sense of morality.What a joke!!!

A ‘moral obligation’ to pay up?

It was an utter lack of moral obligation that has us where we are with these organizations. They are hardly likely to start being moral now. Such a pity the hell they believe in doesn’t exist.

Alternately just grow up, realise that there is cause and effect, no magic and learn to live this one life you have graciously and kindly.

Why is it in almost every image of Quinn, that expression on his face, he looks like he is about to fall off his bicycle?

It was the families of these people who colluded with the state to hide their “mistakes”.

The victims in many cases should be suing their own parents, not just the state + religious institutions.

The state he loves so dear enabled all of this, it will now have even more power to snatch children once this “childrens” referendum is passed. Children will be then snatched for entirely arbitrary reasons as no definitions have been given.